1st DEM Debate Thread: June 26 & 27, Miami, MSNBC & NBC & Telemundo (9-11pm)

[History505]

Can someone give me a quick reason why so many thought beto didn't do well. I did not watch debate, just curious.

Did he have a gaffe?

He didn't seem ready for prime time, and didn't really answer the questions.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's interesting to see such a large array of opinions in what people took away from the debate in this thread. I guess I'll add mine:

Warren: She was the center of attention during the first half of the debate and held her own. I don't think she had any standout moments, but her position is stable and that's all she really needs. It was interesting how little attention she got in the latter part of the debate though.

O'Rourke: Alright, you finally got me. He should drop out and maybe run against Cornyn. I'm conceding that. I still like the guy, and wanted to support him, but he is not ready. He undeniably had the worst performance, and that opinion seems universal. He was almost as awkward as that technical difficulty with the microphone. Side note: what the f*** happened there MSNBC!? The second he clumsily transitioned to Spanish in his opening statement, I knew this was going to be rough for him. He as also on the ropes from most candidates who seemed intent on skewering him the most, I don't know if that was planned or if Castro and de Blasio just took advantage of the opportunities before them.

Booker: My Senator impressed me. I think his performance was overall very good and I could see him gaining a bit in the polls. Maybe it's bias towards him being one of my elected officials, but I think I've been too bearish on him throughout this campaign.

Klobuchar: As always, she was good on substance and notably she actually wasn't as dull as she usually is. Her zingers were really hokey though, and they kept happening the second she ran out of time, nearly every time. Overall a good performance though.

Castro: Everybody seemed impressed by him, but to me he is the most generic person running in this campaign (along with Bennet and Swalwell). He is excellent when he discusses immigration and his connection to it, but I wasn't blown away by him. He did well though, there's no denying that. I just wasn't floored by him like everyone else seems to be.

Gabbard: It kind of pains me to say it, since she is one of my least favorite candidates in the field, but I think she came off really well. Dare I say it, but she also impressed me. Her moment with Ryan especially might just have been the highlight of the night. It's really the only moment I can see being replayed. She destroyed him, and was correct on the issue they were debating. I may have actually grown slightly more fond of her candidacy, mostly on a surface level...slightly.

Ryan: I thought he did really well towards the beginning of the debate, I was almost ready to call him one of the night's winners...but then that moment with Gabbard absolutely embarrassed him. His folksy, Midwestern, "populist" charm fell flat on its face as he was reduced to a stuttering incoherent nervous mess.

Inslee: Poor Jay Inslee probably got the shortest end of the stick tonight. I feel like he talked the least. So much so that I can't really assess his performance. I thought his focus on climate change would have made him more distinguished in this debate, but by accident or by design that just doesn't look to be transpiring.

De Blasio: He also pleasantly surprised me. He was on the offense in a big way and came off as having this "I don't give a f***" New York attitude. He was throwing shade (a term I hate, but is just too appropriate here) everywhere, especially at O'Rourke and more slyly towards Buttigieg and was able to be a "populist" while also not alienating us "coastal elitals" like Ryan always seems to. I don't see myself supporting him, or having much faith in him as a nominee, but he was definitely one of the most entertaining candidates to watch tonight. I can see him gaining slightly in the polls too.

Delaney: Finally we get to Delaney, who was just kind of obnoxious to me. He tried to butt into a lot of peoples' statements and acted very dismissive of some of the more ambitious ideas from the other candidates. He is one of the worse performers tonight, as I see it.

So there are my overly long thoughts. It went about how I expected it-a contest for attention, but ultimately with few memorable moments. I'm fine with that though. Simpletons like the President may have found it BORING!!! Our politics needs less sideshow moments and more substance, which there was in this debate. It was helpful for an undecided Democrat like myself to be able to get to know the candidates better and see them in a different setting. For one thing it was helpful in assuring me that O'Rourke would not make a good nominee, which is unfortunate, but something I'm glad to have finally accepted. I doubt it will move the needle very much in the grand scheme of the primary though, and probably be forgotten about by tomorrow, but it served its purpose.

The format was very messy though. A stricter threshold with less candidates participating probably would have been preferable. Even with that said, I expect tomorrow's debate to be much more interesting since there are more well-known candidates and more potential for fireworks.

I'll see you all then. Expect those thoughts to be even longer than these ones here, sorry.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Where can I watch a recording of this? I was busy.

This NBC stream has a time shift function.

[MarkD]

I didn't watch either. Were there any questions about appointing Supreme Court Justices? Did the candidates have anything interesting to say in answer to such a question?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Can I get back to making Stacey Abrams jokes now?

[NOVA Green]

Anyone who watched the full gig have predictions on the top sound bites that the Media will replay?

(Especially considering the vast majority of Americans aren't actually watching the debate).

Waiting to watch the replay until my Wife gets off work, and only casually followed for that reason, but sometimes the media spin creates more of an impression than just those of us who actually enjoy watching these types of events bcs we are political geeks.....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gabbard is the most searched candidate.

https://trends.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_o_FMW2oBAACFKM_en

[walleye26]

Can someone give me a quick reason why so many thought beto didn't do well. I did not watch debate, just curious.

Did he have a gaffe?

I like Beto, but he got surgically destroyed by Castro. Castro destroyed him on immigration, and even de Blasio beat on him pretty good. 

[izixs]

Can someone give me a quick reason why so many thought beto didn't do well. I did not watch debate, just curious.

Did he have a gaffe?

I like Beto, but he got surgically destroyed by Castro. Castro destroyed him on immigration, and even de Blasio beat on him pretty good. 

Weirdly enough once I was done live tweeting the whole thing, it was the Beto folks who found me to retweet my short version of his closing statement.

Also... it was weird that there were closing statements and not opening statements. Like, yeah, we want to get into things right away, but the audience probably knew nothing about who half of them were so it could have been super useful for the first real debate to have an opening statement but not a closing.

[Dr. Arch]

Where can I watch a recording of this? I was busy.

This NBC stream has a time shift function.

Thanks!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

My ranking tonight of performance compared to expectations:
1.) Castro
2.) deBlasio
3.) Booker
4.) Warren
5.) Gabbard
6.) Inslee
7.) Klobuchar
8.) Ryan
9.) Delaney
10.) Beto

Basically, Castro has moved into the second tier of candidates with Booker, and Beto has fallen at least into the middle of that tier.  DeBlasio and Gabbard have justified continuing the candidacies, while Ryan and Delaney have not.  Warren is still well above anyone else in that group.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I'm going to keep this in my pocket forever. LMAO!

[Dr. MB]

My takes:

-Castro did great. Besides his one cringey moment (about transgender women getting abortions) I think he really made a name for himself. This was his make or break moment and I doubt it's gonna go towards the break direction.
-Prairie communist (sorry for stealing your line Cold War Liberal) Tim Ryan flopped hard. He tried to shed his blue dog image while at the same time gaffing (is that a word) to the extreme and I've gotta say, Tulsi destroyed him.
-Warren played it safe and I doubt this will affect her one way or another. She really was the only one who had anything to lose, and she lost nothing. But she didn't gain anything either.
-Booker's answers were solid but he looks constipated all the time and it's hard to take him seriously.
-Klobuchar wore too much makeup and it didn't make her look good in front of the camera, combine that with the forgettable answers and yeah I don't see her going anywhere.
-De Blasio really surprised me.
-MSNBC needs to fire their cameraman and sound technicians.

Tomorrow I think Bernie and Biden will take the same strategy Warren did tonight and it won't really pay off either way. Harris, Bennet, and Yang will shine. Gillibrand and Swalwell will flop. The others won't really register.

[GoTfan]

I'm going to keep this in my pocket forever. LMAO!

Booker's just going "Srsly?"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Blue3]

How I'd rank these 10 after the debate...

1. Elizabeth Warren - very good first hour, good second hour, was prepared and confident, communicated her plans well... I just think she needed a better answer on her guns question (did she blank on the idea of a gun buyback?) and her going into her biography and getting into college reminds people of *that* story

2. Julian Castro - impressive all-round, especially his detailed policy attack on Beto and knowing where everyone else on the stage stood

...

3. Tulsi Gabbard - composed, and I think her anti-war message might have given her a good moment with her calling Tim Ryan out on his support for endless military engagement but she really should have clarified about the Taliban/AlQaeda and been given time to explain that better

4. Jay Inslee - I like him in theory, and appreciate him highlighting climate change, but his performance wasn't too impressive

5. Bill De Blasio - better than expected, "high energy" as Trump would say, but still somewhat lacking, and his "btw I have a black son" was weird.

...

6. Cory Booker - I think everyone knows I hate him, he's a corporatist shill, but he did an ok job with his "performance" tonight and at least he did seem genuine on a few things, and I liked his answer on violence against LGBTQ people, but he did so much pandering. If he really saw his supposed "community" as his actual "community," maybe he should have actually tried to dispel the myth of low-income black neighborhoods being war-torn hells on earth, and actually talk about the good stuff that happens in those communities? So much "btw I'm black" pandering going on.

7. John Delaney - eh, well, he put in effort and at least wasn't a snoozefest? (I also just had to look up his first name)

...

8. Amy Klobuchar - awful, so plain and generic, "vote for me because I listen and I also do stuff," and at one point she was like "immigrants!" while rolling her eyes and snorting, it was just weird.

9. Beto O'Rourke - terrible, needs to drop out, everyone cleaned his clock, especially Castro

10. Tim Ryan - awful, not confident, talked about never leaving Afghanistan, talked about "engagement" for a solid minute, Tulsi bit back, and he said he wasn't talking about engagement? Needs to drop out, I doubt he'll make it to the 3rd debate.

[Alben Barkley]

1. O'Rourke f--king SUCKED! This is the most clear and obvious takeaway from the entire debate. He is by far the Biggest Loser. In fact he lost within 5 seconds of opening his mouth when he inexplicably started speaking Spanish in response to a question that's not even related to Hispanic issues. It was the worst, most cringeworthy kind of pandering. And then he looked lost and nervous the whole rest of the night and got schooled on his signature issue by his fellow Texan who's an actual Hispanic. Just months ago I thought O'Rourke could be another Obama, but now he's looking more like another Rubio (right down to getting bullied by the big tough NY/NJ guy) or even Jeb! Hell, instead of Kennedy he looked like Nixon in the 1960 debates, right down to the five o'clock shadow! Total dud, and right when he NEEDED a breakout moment more than anyone at that. RIP the O'Rourke Campaign, he's finished after tonight.

2. Warren won by not losing. She mostly played it safe, which was a smart strategy considering she got stuck with mostly also-rans. Punching down would not have helped her. Sticking to her message and pleasing the crowd was all she needed to do, and based on the reactions I'm seeing from most corners of the internet she succeeded. She got the spotlight in the first half (probably the more watched half) and she also hammered it home nicely with her closing statement. She didn't exactly have a huge "WOW" moment, but that's OK; the important thing is she did nothing that's going to slow her momentum. When she goes up against Biden and Bernie, it will be time for different tactics, but she did what she had to do tonight to advance.

3. Castro had the closest thing to a breakout performance. Before tonight, most people would have been very confused if you told them "Castro" was running for President. Their minds probably would not have gone to a HUD Secretary from Texas, to say the least. And though his name is unfortunate, hey, a guy named Hussein Obama won during the War on Terror. Tonight, Castro looked more Obama-like than O'Rourke, that's for sure, and also even Booker to an extent. He was composed and prepared and made his points well. I still don't think he's necessarily the best bet for the top of the ticket, but he certainly is laying the groundwork for a solid VP bid.

4. de Blasio exceeded expectations. The collective reaction of both the City of New York and the Democratic Party seemed to be a massive groan when de Blasio announced he was running, but he actually didn't do half-bad tonight. He certainly drew attention to himself at least. It helps that he is really tall and imposing, and he's definitely got the New York tough guy attitude. All of which could be assets against Trump. I think there are probably at least a few people tonight who do want a Democratic Trump and now are considering that he could be the guy when he wasn't on their radar before.

5. Booker and Klobuchar did OK, but probably not enough to improve their standing much. I mean what can I say? Average performances from decidedly average candidates. Booker seems to be getting a lot of praise, but I didn't really see it. To be fair I've never really cared for the guy (his intensity, unblinking eyes, and "I AM SPARTACUS" dramatic personality are all off-putting to me), but I can acknowledge that he did mostly fine tonight, just nothing exceptional. Not to mention his attempt at Spanish was almost as cringey as Beto's, especially considering it came AFTERWARDS. But at least it was shorter and in a somewhat better context I guess. Klobuchar got one good zinger/applause line at Inslee's expense early on, but otherwise seemed fairly dull and unremarkable to me. I doubt she'll get a substantial bump, especially after tomorrow night is likely to overshadow some of the less remarkable performances from tonight.

6. Ryan and Delaney just need to drop out already. Enough said. Same goes for Gabbard, too, but that has less to do with her performance tonight and more to do with her being an Assad-loving DINO admired by Steve Bannon and David Duke. Also her Twitter was going off on NBC for somehow being biased towards Warren during the debate, despite the fact that Warren was virtually ignored during the second half and got less time than Booker or O'Rourke. Real classy!

[Annatar]

In my opinion Gabbard did well, I think her demolition of Ryan was impressive and she sounded solid overall. Warren did okay but nothing special, the other candidates in my opinion really failed to stand out, Booker may possibly also have done well but I'm not sure how others see Booker's performance.

[Dr. Arch]

1. O'Rourke f--king SUCKED! This is the most clear and obvious takeaway from the entire debate. He is by far the Biggest Loser. In fact he lost within 5 seconds of opening his mouth when he inexplicably started speaking Spanish in response to a question that's not even related to Hispanic issues. It was the worst, most cringeworthy kind of pandering. And then he looked lost and nervous the whole rest of the night and got schooled on his signature issue by his fellow Texan who's an actual Hispanic. Just months ago I thought O'Rourke could be another Obama, but now he's looking more like another Rubio (right down to getting bullied by the big tough NY/NJ guy) or even Jeb! Hell, instead of Kennedy he looked like Nixon in the 1960 debates, right down to the five o'clock shadow! Total dud, and right when he NEEDED a breakout moment more than anyone at that. RIP the O'Rourke Campaign, he's finished after tonight.

2. Warren won by not losing. She mostly played it safe, which was a smart strategy considering she got stuck with mostly also-rans. Punching down would not have helped her. Sticking to her message and pleasing the crowd was all she needed to do, and based on the reactions I'm seeing from most corners of the internet she succeeded. She got the spotlight in the first half (probably the more watched half) and she also hammered it home nicely with her closing statement. She didn't exactly have a huge "WOW" moment, but that's OK; the important thing is she did nothing that's going to slow her momentum. When she goes up against Biden and Bernie, it will be time for different tactics, but she did what she had to do tonight to advance.

3. Castro had the closest thing to a breakout performance. Before tonight, most people would have been very confused if you told them "Castro" was running for President. Their minds probably would not have gone to a HUD Secretary from Texas, to say the least. And though his name is unfortunate, hey, a guy named Hussein Obama won during the War on Terror. Tonight, Castro looked more Obama-like than O'Rourke, that's for sure, and also even Booker to an extent. He was composed and prepared and made his points well. I still don't think he's necessarily the best bet for the top of the ticket, but he certainly is laying the groundwork for a solid VP bid.

4. de Blasio exceeded expectations. The collective reaction of both the City of New York and the Democratic Party seemed to be a massive groan when de Blasio announced he was running, but he actually didn't do half-bad tonight. He certainly drew attention to himself at least. It helps that he is really tall and imposing, and he's definitely got the New York tough guy attitude. All of which could be assets against Trump. I think there are probably at least a few people tonight who do want a Democratic Trump and now are considering that he could be the guy when he wasn't on their radar before.

5. Booker and Klobuchar did OK, but probably not enough to improve their standing much. I mean what can I say? Average performances from decidedly average candidates. Booker seems to be getting a lot of praise, but I didn't really see it. To be fair I've never really cared for the guy (his intensity, unblinking eyes, and "I AM SPARTACUS" dramatic personality are all off-putting to me), but I can acknowledge that he did mostly fine tonight, just nothing exceptional. Not to mention his attempt at Spanish was almost as cringey as Beto's, especially considering it came AFTERWARDS. But at least it was shorter and in a somewhat better context I guess. Klobuchar got one good zinger/applause line at Inslee's expense early on, but otherwise seemed fairly dull and unremarkable to me. I doubt she'll get a substantial bump, especially after tomorrow night is likely to overshadow some of the less remarkable performances from tonight.

6. Ryan and Delaney just need to drop out already. Enough said. Same goes for Gabbard, too, but that has less to do with her performance tonight and more to do with her being an Assad-loving DINO admired by Steve Bannon and David Duke. Also her Twitter was going off on NBC for somehow being biased towards Warren during the debate, despite the fact that Warren was virtually ignored during the second half and got less time than Booker or O'Rourke. Real classy!

Gabbard did very well too. She, Castro, and de Blasio (surprisingly) were the closest to a breakout performance.

To me, Castro and Gabbard went way up on my list. De Blasio is on my radar now. Warren remains up there.

More tomorrow

[Alben Barkley]

6. Ryan and Delaney just need to drop out already. Enough said. Same goes for Gabbard, too, but that has less to do with her performance tonight and more to do with her being an Assad-loving DINO admired by Steve Bannon and David Duke. Also her Twitter was going off on NBC for somehow being biased towards Warren during the debate, despite the fact that Warren was virtually ignored during the second half and got less time than Booker or O'Rourke. Real classy!

Gabbard did very well too. She, Castro, and de Blasio (surprisingly) were the closest to a breakout performance.

To me, Castro and Gabbard went way up on my list. De Blasio is on my radar now. Warren remains up there.

More tomorrow

Yeah, Gabbard's still dead last on my list for the reasons I mentioned. (Well, unless you count Gravel as a candidate, who has all the same problems except he's also a 9/11 truther, is 1 million years old, is not a real candidate, and his "campaign" is being run by teenagers.) I agree her performance was not terrible, but I also think that her best moment (owning Tim Ryan) is not exactly a huge victory that will cause a lasting breakout for her.

[beesley]

Watching the debate now. Only reached the healthcare part, but Warren, De Blasio, Castro and Delaney are doing well in my opinion (which isn't a left-leaning opinion, explaining why I liked Delaney). Beto and Gabbard suck - Beto for his sheer failure, not just the Spanish pandering, Gabbard for answering a question on equal pay with facts about herself. Tim Ryan is pointless.

[Bismarck]

Klobuchar: Russia!!!!!!!

Everyone who said China just proves how incompetent they are.

The only correct answers to that question would be climate change, Trump, gun violence and an inhumane way to treat one another - including of course in immigration policy.

The question was geopolitical threats. So basically China and Russia are the only correct answers.

[OkThen]

https://twitter.com/NBCNewsPR/status/1144316438561398785

[terp40hitch]

https://twitter.com/NBCNewsPR/status/1144316438561398785

Pretty good considering first GOP 2016 debate had 20 million but also had Trump and this had De Blasio just yelling while candidates were answering questions

[America Needs R'hllor]

After watching it, my debate ranking:
1. Castro- said the right things, showed charisma, had some zingers.
2. Klobuchar- had good and substantive answers to everything.
3. Warren- same as Klobucher but her support for outlawing private health insurance was bad. Still love her though.
4. De Blasio- dropped more fire than expected and positioned himself as a progressive.
5. Gabbard- literally dodged every single question which annoyed me to no end. But her LGBTQ answer and kicking Ryan's butt were very good.
6. Booker- same as Gabbard, dodged most questions and just kept talking about his neighborhood.
7. Inslee- missed some blatant opportunities to shine and was extremely boring. Hell, he let Beto outshine him on his signature issue.
8. Delaney- came off as desperate like Jim Webb, but had some strong moments.
9. Beto- had some good answers but couldn't hold his own, it was pretty sad to see.
10. Ryan- lmao